NASA's Deceptions...DARK MISSION

you are right about one thing,nasa is a military organisation.The whole space race was a charade,in reality it was about the domination of space and propaganda.

If anyone wants to read the first 20 pages of dark mission, go to the website...

www.darkmission.net...

Click on excerpts to the left, it will bring up a pdf file.

Originally posted by anhinga

I got the book -- it's awesome, almost 600 pages, haven't gotten really into it yet. Tons of photos, colour and b/w and Hoagland seems really angry at NASA. That press conference was this morning, wonder when there will be a video clip of it? Anyone got that yet?

Have you had time to finish it?

Care to give us a mini-review?
Including some leads on photo's listed?

Thanks...

My copy of Dark Mission arrived last week. I've been working my way through it rather slowly since the scientific concepts are foreign to me. But I do understand it in layman's terms.

I'm finding it an interesting, but complex read. Hoagland is laying the foundation for the rest of the book. I'll chime in as I move through it.

One thing I can definitely say is that it's the best explanation yet, for a math idiot like me, of some of the physics involved in that area of expertise, which makes it exciting for me to read.

I sent a gift copy to a friend of mine a few states away so that we can discuss it over the hols. Should be interesting.

Hoagland's making me think hard. I like that in a book.

Welcome back PrplHrt !

"PrplHrt - Old Member, Resurrected"

I, and I'm sure others are looking forward to it.!
Could you give some leads on some of the photo's in the meantime?

I think RCH and MB have been keeping nasa/ DoD semi honest in years gone by, and I do appreciate their work.
They certainly don't do it for praise, as they are flamed here and by the DoD for their efforts.
Great guys IMO.

reply to post by Alexander the o.k.


A lot of Moon and Mars shots, many trying to 'lift' the airbrush features. The color ones are sweet, even some, to my knowledge, that don't appear on the EM site. Each chapter concludes w/ photos of that chapter's discussion, some 'color scale' comparison shots within.

I haven't gotten that far into it yet, maybe 100 pages, I've been sidetracked w/ health/Maya readings. Apologies for not getting back to this post earlier Alex...

The book is now about $16 used on Amazon, so far he's really laying it on NASA for the Nazi/Freemason connect, a lot about that "discovered/alien bases" book written by a CIA agent containing a "lost slide" of Moon research. It seems like an overall slam on NASA -- as the title suggests, I've been meaning to get back to the book recently.... yet, there's many chapters which deal w/ direct research of Mars monuments, Moon conspiracies, etc...

[edit on 19-11-2007 by anhinga]

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by win 52
nasa fed us all that crap about the RED planet when I was in school. They were lying all along.

Good Lord. I've seen Mars through a telescope myself. It's red. I don't really care what color the atmosphere is once you're there looking up. When you look at it from here, it's red.

LOL I was just gonna post that! Thanks for pointing this out.

It is remarkable how Hoagland, Lear and others of their kind can point there collective finger to an object and tell the world it's not the color it appears to be. Lear, for one, claims that there is breathable oxygen atmosphere on the Moon. Never mind all other holes in this argument, the color of the Moon would be different due to scattering of light off O2 molecules.

Then again, why bother looking at facts when you can spend hours theorizing about Soul Catchers, Martian cities and all that

reply to post by Alexander the o.k.

A the OK -

My initial thumb-through when the book arrived has made me skeptical, particularly the interpretations of some of the photos. There are claims about large glass structures in certain photos, but right now the "evidence" looks like photographic/film/development artifacts and not the ancient things H. believes them to be.

I'll keep you posted.

Originally posted by Copernicus
Just the sheer number of people trying to discredit Hoagland makes him very interesting to me. If someone is getting character assassinated by lots of people, you can bet there is some truth to what he says.
[edit on 14-10-2007 by Copernicus]

Yes, brilliant logic. Hitler indeed spoke the truth.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

It is remarkable how Hoagland, Lear and others of their kind can point there collective finger to an object and tell the world it's not the color it appears to be. Lear, for one, claims that there is breathable oxygen atmosphere on the Moon. Never mind all other holes in this argument, the color of the Moon would be different due to scattering of light off O2 molecules. Then again, why bother looking at facts when you can spend hours theorizing about Soul Catchers, Martian cities and all that

Thanks for the post BS. Many don't find their true mission in life until its too late to do anything about it. I think, however that we can conclude that this is not true for you. I am happy to be a part of your 'mission'.

And thanks again for the post.

reply to post by johnlear


Hey.
This guy was banned for misuse of this site.
Must have been a temporary ban.
I would not bother to respond to flamers, baiters and trolls
You have your beliefs, I have mine.
If someone wants to flame, bait, and troll, they'll eventually be banned.
Thanks mods.
Civility is key.
Thanks for your sig line.
Keeps things in perspective...

Coast to Coast AM Science Advisor Richard C. Hoagland and former Boeing aerospace engineer Mike Bara introduced their just released book Dark Mission. It's a compendium of NASA's lies and deceptions, Hoagland declared.

Here are some of NASA's deceptions that the two authors claim have been foisted upon the American public:

NASA presents itself as a civilian space agency. It's actually a military agency, that won't allow private enterprise space missions to leave orbit, said Hoagland.

October 9th, 2007

Hmmmm.

I helped found a PRIVATE aerospace company (which is still operating to this day, though I am no longer actively involved) almost 30 years ago.

The ONLY thing keeping us from reaching orbit (and beyond!) was the lack of an efficient launch vechicle.

The only government agency we ever had any trouble with was the AST, the division of the Federal Aviation Administration set up to oversee the safety aspects of .... Commercial, Private Enterprise Launch Providers!.

And Their only hang-up was:

"How you going to make sure no innocent bystander gets killed if something goes wrong with the rocket?"


An appropriate question, IMHO, for a government agency looking out for the safety of its citizens.



NASA, when they can cut through the red-tape that the government "bean-counters" have imposed, has always been ready and willing to help any commercial endevour I'm familiar with.


It is true that, since the Challenger disaster (bean-counters, again!), NASA and the military have begun working more closely together. This is due in large part to the fact that the military requires NASA's assets to augment and further the military's growing dependence on orbital assets/operations.

And NASA's growing dependence on the virtually limitless funding available to the military, which the military is able to "share" (as a "pusher is able to "share" with a junkie) with NASA.

It is an unhealthy, and untenable, arrangement for NASA. Unfortunately, it is the arrangement forced upon NASA because the American public has little comprehension of the scientific value of an a well and independently funded organization such as NASA.

And what the rubes can't understand, they seldom fund (unless you can scare them, first).


I think Mr. Hoagland is merely playing to the gullability of the ignorant in his rants against NASA.

Originally posted by PrplHrt
reply to post by Alexander the o.k.

 

A the OK -

My initial thumb-through when the book arrived has made me skeptical, particularly the interpretations of some of the photos. There are claims about large glass structures in certain photos, but right now the "evidence" looks like photographic/film/development artifacts and not the ancient things H. believes them to be.

I'll keep you posted.

Thanks.
I'll look forward to your mini review.
A bit of skepticism is always good.
I assume he bases his theory of "large glass structures in certain photos" on scattered light (refractive) analysis?

Any tid bits so far?

I purchased the book from Amazon and the introduction alone drops some pretty good bombs on your way of thinking about NASA. I really am enjoying this book so far but have a hard time with the understanding some parts with following Maxwells theories. But I read it twice and understand the basics of where they are going.

(SPOILER ALERT)
I am on the chapter where Hoagland is talking about angular momentum and how there has to be a planet x perturbing Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus and Pluto. They mention there needs to be at lease 2 other planets the size of Pluto (maybe slightly larger), or 1 very large planet the size of Jupiter in our solar system unaccounted for.

So I am up to this point and looking forward to see where Bara and Hoagland are going with this. I don't pretend to understand hyperdimensions but I believe I understand it enough to understand the over all theory now.

I have to say the Introduction part of the book had grabbed my attention about NASA and the cover ups and I feel ROBBED as a tax payer. You can't blame everyone at NASA as they are just men doing a specific task.

So I assume NASA is going to stick to the Mushroom Method until other start coming forward.

I would ask any true ATS member to go out and buy this book and spread the news.

Is Hoagland on about his hyperdimensional physics theory again? I haven't read the book but most of his claims on his web site are easily refuted. See this article here at bad astronomy.com:
Hoagland claims debunked

I actually feel a bit sorry for the guy. To waste your life on crazy conspiracy theories is quite sad. As an example he accuses NASA of deliberately doctoring photos of the Martian sky to make it look red. But NASA actually describes the issues of color correction in regards to its photos and describes how to correct the colors. It's hardly a coverup or conspiracy:
JPL link on colors of Mars

Originally posted by ghofer

I haven't read the book but most of his claims on his web site are easily refuted.

Thanks for the post ghofer. I find it interesting that you propose Hoaglands claims can be easily refuted, by citing other references, when you haven't even read the book.

Thanks for the post.

I said the claims on his web site, not the book.

Greg

reply to post by johnlear


I find it interesting that--ghofer--had just signed up to the site yesterday...and now think he is an expert on this subject and novel----can you spell t-----r-----o----ll...

nice talkin to ya john

Originally posted by ghofer

I said the claims on his web site, not the book. Greg

Sorry about that Greg, this was a thread about Dark Missions and I didn't read your post carefully.

Thanks for your input.

This whole thing smells of disinformation piled on top of disinformation to sell a book.

This kind of stuff is the reason I rarely come here anymore.